Taking Things up a Notch

My article on the controversial Arizona immigration bill now appears at Pajamas Media.

With Governor Jan Brewer’s signing of SB 1070, the battle lines were drawn. The prospect of empowering and requiring law enforcement in Arizona to enforce federal immigration law raises civil rights concerns on both sides of the debate. Many supporters seem torn between these concerns and the prospect of overwhelming schools, social services, and the police if illegal immigration is left unchecked. However, as someone who sympathizes with its proponents, I must say that SB 1070 is wrong for Arizona for reasons far beyond civil rights issues.

SB 1070 deserves only one fundamental criticism: It would fail to protect the individual rights of American citizens –even if it hermetically sealed our borders and the police never touched a single American hair in the process of enforcing it. This is because the biggest headaches attributed to illegal immigration are not caused by it at all.

I'll take the moment to welcome anyone arriving from PJM. If you enjoyed this article, be sure to take a look around here. The list of favorite posts is a good place to start.

More important, getting an op-ed published in a major outlet has been a goal of mine as a writer for quite some time, and I would like to thank some people who helped it happen. I had been putting off trying this due to personal circumstances, but Paul Hsieh's string of incisive articles about individual rights in medicine inspired me to take the plunge anyway. His encouragement and writing advice were also invaluable. In addition, I appreciate the always unsparing feedback of my toughest critic, Mrs. Van Horn. She saw this before I released it into the wild. Last but not least, I owe my regular readers and commenters my thanks. Your visits were telling me all along to aim higher. You have my gratitude.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 527

Your Liver or Your Life

The state of New York is considering "libertarian paternalistic" legislation that will make everyone organ donors unless they make a special effort to "opt out." This is wrong, of course, because the state does not own our bodies.

The thing about organ donor [sic] is we have the cure right now in our hands. It's not like trying to cure cancer," said Elaine Berg of the Organ Donor Network.

If by "the cure" Elaine Berg means "your life," and by "we" she means "Big Brother," then she is onto something here. My only question, given that ObamaCare will have the state in charge of making "budgetary" calls on whether the "donor" or the potential recipient will receive medical care, is whether Berg regards citizens of lesser "value" to the state than their organs -- or individual freedom -- as diseases that need to be eradicated.

Who knew that the state would consign us to the fate of Prometheus for the crime of possessing a liver?

Fleas 1, Health Department 0

At this juncture, it somehow seems appropriate to recall other dangers of entrusting the government with important things best left to individual initiative and the profit motive:

The Fairfield [County, Ohio] Department of Health has closed its building in Lancaster for three days to treat it for a flea infestation.

...

Chipmunks and bats also have been spotted in the building.

...

[Women Infants and Children program] clients have been notified and rescheduled for appointments.

Later:

The health department inspects restaurants and pools, responds to septic-system complaints and vaccinates children, among other duties required by law.

Great! Instead of going out of business in the face of even mediocre competition, as it should have (and could have under capitalism), this centralized location for exposure to disease vectors will be propped up with confiscated money.

News from 1930

Via Megan McArdle, I have learned of a blog about newspaper stories starting from mid-1930. (It's up to this date in 1931 now.) From the "Socratic monologue" on its introductory page:

I believe 1929-1930 has a couple of important similarities to 2008-2009. First and fundamentally, there was a big buildup of debt leading up to both. This was followed by a couple of major economic problems, including many banks running into trouble and a loss in perceived wealth by lots of people. These problems in turn have deflationary implications since they lead to less credit and spending ...

And then there's the following Warren Buffett quote from its sidebar.

I would get these newspapers from 1929. I couldn't get enough of it. I read everything - not just the business and stock-market stories. History is interesting, and there is something about history in a newspaper, just seeing a place, the stories, even the ads, everything. It takes you into a different world, told by someone who was an eyewitness, and you are really living in that time.

I guess Atlas Shrugged isn't the only thing our current political and economic situation resembles.

Mmmm. Mmmm!

The Boston Globe has posted a pictorial on New England clam and lobster shacks! One down. Thirty to go.

Or not. Most of these are too out-of-the-way for us -- except Red's Eats. We pass Red's Eats whenever we're on the way up to Maine to visit some of Mrs. Van Horn's relatives and make it a point to stop there. We first learned about it watching Sandwiches You Will Like on PBS, which featured their lobster rolls, each made with all the meat from a lobster.

Quote of the Day

"Parents are obliged to care for their children for the basic reason that the owner of sailboat cannot simply leave a passenger swimming in the middle of the ocean." -- Diana Hsieh contra Murray Rothbard on children's rights

"Instructional Diagrams for People Who Suck at Everyday Life"

Cracked presents the winner and runners-up of a contest in which contributors were asked to make signs to prevent certain annoying situations.

From tailgaters to people who take cell phone calls during a movie, the world is full of folks who just don't seem to get society's rules. We asked you to help them out with instructional diagrams that will show these people how to avoid doing the everyday annoying things that make us want to strangle them.

They covered some of my biggest traffic peeves, reminding me in the process of how nice it is not to have to drive in Boston.

They're all a hoot, though.

-- CAV

Read more...

Thou Shalt Meddle

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes an informative and important piece in the Wall Street Journal regarding the "informal fatwa" against South Park Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Besides filling in a few details you might have missed -- like the fact that Zachary Chesser/Abu Al-Amrikee published the home addresses of the men he "predicted" would "probably end up" like Theo Van Gogh -- Hirsi Ali explains why this threat should be taken seriously and how it should be countered.

My own integration of what I know about the nature of religion in general and Islam in particular with the past behavior of Moslem fanatics had already raised my hackles. Nevertheless, Hirsi Ali definitely improved my knowledge of the enemy and the threat it represents with this column:

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture--unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims--called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

Regarding the murder of Theo Van Gogh, I noted years ago that, "[f]or the religious fanatic, opinions that differ from his will shake his confidence ... as they [challenge the] very foundations of his own worldview." But, in case this -- and the cognitive dissonance of seeing the "evil" West prosper -- aren't enough to provoke a murderous rage, Mohammed (pictured) has made sure to tip the balance in this direction with a combination of authority and unearned guilt.

I did not know this, but it doesn't really surprise me coming from what I long ago concluded to be, "the ideology most nearly the opposite to that which man needs to live a proper and fulfilling life."

Just having to think about things like this makes me want to bathe, but if knowledge of an enemy can be unpleasant, its reward is that it illuminates a means to fight back. Hirsi Ali suggests ways to supplement (replace absent?) government protection of freedom of speech and reminds us that defiance is the order of the day. All involve the strategic use of solidarity against the threat.

Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting [How can they be otherwise? --ed], they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.

Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews--to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans--all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

One way or the other, we will come out of this clash with barbarism as a nation of laws. Whether these are secular, objectively-determined laws designed to protect our rights and thereby help us live -- or they are the dictates of a long-dead barbarian -- is up to us.

-- CAV

Updates

4-29-10: Added missing hyperlink.

Read more...

Sowell on "Filtering"

Thomas Sowell makes yet another of the kind of observation that has made him a favorite columnist of mine for a long time.

Long ago, Sowell was surprised to learn that he was rumored to refuse to see campus visitors from Africa. As a professor normally too busy to take any campus visitors -- and as someone nearly as enthusiastic about sky-diving as I am -- he replied that the rumor was about as accurate as saying that he "refused to go sky-diving with blacks."

Thus Sowell introduces a similar rumor from history:

If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.

But that is not the message that is being taught in our schools and colleges, or dramatized on television and in the movies. The message that is pounded home again and again is that white people enslaved black people.

Sowell goes on to note that the focus on race acts in much the same way the old rumor about him did: as a filter that makes Western civilization seem worse than it deserves. Said filter also hides in plain sight one of the greatest achievements of the West, the near-total eradication of slavery. Unsurprisingly, opponents of Western civilization take advantage of this same filter to continue tearing it down at every opportunity.

In a broad sense, Sowell's topic here is objectivity, but this is an angle I had never explicitly considered in exactly this way. Conceiving of an issue in terms of non-essentials is hugely detrimental to acquiring new knowledge. Very thought-provoking.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 526

Mark Your Calendars

Via Jason Stotts (who hosted last week's Objectivist Round-up), May 20 will be "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

Blogroll Updates

Speaking of Jason Stotts, I managed to leave out the address of his blog, Erosophia, during a recent blogroll update. That's been fixed.

Also, the link to Paul Hsieh's GeekPress now reflects its recent migration to a new domain.

Mo Mo

Returning to Mohammed for a moment, I see that Ann Althouse wonders, based on the case of Zachary Adam Chesser (aka Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee), whether radical Islam is "the new Goth."

I think she has a good point, except at the end of her post, when she chides the boy because what he did "is a much greater mockery of Islam than a drawing of Muhammad". I see where she's trying to go, but the idea of mocking Islam is akin to the idea of gilding a lily -- particularly after the first set of cartoon riots.

In addition, it's not the whole story. Around the sixties, Ayn Rand noted that the hippies were not really rebelling against their upbringings: Neither is Chesser rebelling against his. Raised in an intellectual climate that preaches the unlimited value of not "offending" minority groups -- at the expense of stifling free expression of the smallest minority -- Chesser's festishization of a perceptual image is far easier than understanding and embracing an abstract principle like the right to free expression. It is also the very embodiment of the poisonous, anti-mind animus of multiculturalism, as well as the undercurrent of racism it supposedly repudiates.

So yes, Chesser/Al-Amrikee is a Goth of sorts, but he's wearing black and affecting an attitude just like all the other Goths. Just don't mistake this for a substantive rebellion.

Another Precautionary Disaster

AOL News features an interesting piece by Michael Fumento on whether the World Health Organization (WHO) intentionally sewed panic before the advent of the swine flu last year.

So given the mild course swine flu was taking, how could the WHO justify declaring a pandemic? Easy. It rewrote the definition! The new one, viewable here and published last July, simply eliminates severity as a factor. This renders the definition meaningless, since flu always causes "simultaneous epidemics worldwide." Instead, it closely matched the new definition to swine flu by requiring that the strain contain either animal or mixed-human animal genetic material.

Elsewhere, Fumento notes that the lower bound of the number of deaths predicted by the WHO was 2 million (the actual number of deaths was "over 17853" as of April 23, far lower than the normal flu toll).

Nine Bins of Something

Tales like this and this would be much funnier were they not also examples of where the momentum of the current culture would take us.

-- CAV

Read more...

Time for Some Dr. John

I mentioned some time back enjoying the music of New Orleanean Dr. John, and recommended Dr. John: The Definitive Pop Collection along the way. That album was a Christmas gift a couple of years ago, but until recently, I'd completely forgotten that I also received Right Place, Right Time: Live at Tipitina's. What this smaller collection lacks in quantity, it more than makes up for in spontaneity and fun. Stumbling across the CD shortly after rejuvenating my iPod, I ripped it and listened to it during a recent trip to the grocery.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything from that collection (which was recorded at the 1989 Mardi Gras) on YouTube, but I did find another live performance of "Junco Partner," which is embedded above. It's not quite as good as the version on the album, but if you like that, you can also listen to "Goin' Back to New Orleans" and "Iko Iko" (some glitches there between 1:30 and 2:00), and extrapolate among them to decide whether you might like this collection.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 525

Affordable. Secular. Flexible.

Homeschoolers looking for a solid history curriculum would do well to consider Scott Powell's History at Our House. More details come in the video below.

Since I have yet to complete Step One for homeschooling ("Beget, Borrow, or Steal Children."), I don't home school, but I have enjoyed Powell's First History for Adults in the past. Based on that experience, I think this is well worth a look.

STATS on Eyjafjallajokull

STATS, the blog of the Statistical Assessment Service, offers the following succinct commentary regarding the absurd, costly, government-enforced shutdown of European airspace after the Icelandic eruption:

This [substitution of worst-case thinking for rational risk assessment] is not ... an isolated phenomenon, but rather the result of a broad societal amplification of fear as a criterion for dealing with and regulating life. It is a radicalized skepticism which places far greater value on what is unknown, what might happen, than what can be known about what will happen. And this fear of the unknown demands action -- government intervention and regulation on the grounds that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I agree completely, except that I do not think STATS goes quite far enough in identifying what is not just a political, but a cultural phenomenon.

"Worst-case thinking" is a manifestation of the malevolent universe premise. It pervades the culture to the point that "worst case scenario" isn't just a common saying, but has been the name of a popular "reality" television series (among other things). As it was in the case of the European airspace closings, it often comes thinly disguised as "science."

To be completely clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with considering such scenarios, when it is warranted. But to do this day in and day out as one's normal policy is mistaken. It is just as wrong to attempt to eradicate all risk as it is to behave without any regard to risk because life is inherently risky.

There are no shortcuts to evaluating risk.

The Clinton-Miranda "Warning"

Taking advantage of anarcho-tyranny and following Bill Clinton's lead, some Islamic totalitarians are, in my opinion, openly inciting terrorism while also reveling in the fact that Clinton and his ilk have already provided them cover. That is, they are "predicting" a fate similar to Theo Van Gogh's for the creators of South Park. The New York Times quotes one Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee:

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

How different is this, really, from Clinton's treasonous "warning"?

"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said.

Just take out "health care" and put in "religion". Anyone who says anything that upsets a hothead or a nut case somewhere is "responsible" for what that person does, by this "argument."

The crime that Al-Amrikee "predicts" will result in murder? Drawing a bear:

[A] "South Park" episode last week ... depicted the founders of various religions, including Moses, Jesus and Buddha, but declined to show the Prophet Muhammad outright and instead represented him as wearing a bear costume.

I was appalled by Clinton's remarks when I heard about them, but not, apparently, enough.

What he did was take a longstanding leftist fallacy (to denounce the open use of "violence," while promoting and condoning every other form of force) and apply it to incitement. Thus, by "warning" against terrorism, Al-Amrikee and his ilk can now incite terrorism, lay the blame on someone else, and preen about how "concerned" they are.

This may just be a new trick of the trade in the daily depravities of Islamic totalitarians, but it is a new low for Bill Clinton.

That Cold, Revisited

A while back, I noted that:

I went all winter wondering when I was going to catch cold, ... with every other subway commute resembling a tour of a tuberculosis ward. Nothing. Even with me being around many more people than in the past, I fell into my usual pattern of staying well until warmer weather arrived (and I'd forgotten all about colds) and then -- bam! -- getting sick.

Another blog posting at STATS points to a very interesting study that suggests that perhaps I should have left out the word, "Even:"

A new study finds that simply looking at sick people may help you to stay healthy. The research showed that seeing symptoms of illness, such as coughing or sneezing, triggers a response from the immune system.

It will be very interesting to see whether more such work will elucidate the connection between the nervous system and the immune system enough to shed light on such matters as the placebo and nocebo effects, and perhaps put them to full use.

It's not my field and I haven't delved into either of them, but two other interesting results pertaining to immunology recently came to my attention: "Fighting Allergies by Mimicking Parasitic Worms" and "Compound LJ001 Acts Like Antibiotic Against Viruses". The strategy employed in the second article is very clever.

-- CAV

Read more...

To What End?

An article by a guilt-ridden, modern Puritan reminds me of a passage in Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto. Here's a taste of the article:

It's true, you're not going to save the planet by choosing pleather jackets over leather ones, beer over wine, or MP3s over CDs. But each time we stage one of these cage matches, we're forced to consider just how complicated the idea of "eco-friendliness" can be. It doesn't just come down to greenhouse gas emissions or energy usage--though those are the two metrics people seem most interested in these days. A complete analysis would also weigh the potential effects of each choice on water pollution, land use, and biodiversity, among many other issues. Plus, studying life cycle analyses--no matter what answers they ultimately provide or how trivial the initial question--reminds us that the products we buy tend to have intricate back stories. [minor edits, bold added]

I vaguely recall, about twenty years ago, when forced recycling was first being crammed down our throats, an intellectual (possibly an Objectivist), noting that we were being told to "hoard garbage as if it were gold."

The above passage, back then, would have seemed like a poor, over-the-top attempt at a farce, with its implicit demand that we become experts about the entire world economy down to the point that we can deduce the detailed history of any item we might think about purchasing. If that passage isn't enough, read the whole article. It amazes me what some people spend their lives thinking about, but I can see why so many people happily (albeit wrongly) defer to authority out of sheer mental exhaustion.

What passage does this remind me of and why?

The subject is not the only attribute of art, but it is the fundamental one, it is the end to which all the others are the means. In most esthetic theories, however, the end--the subject--is omitted from consideration, and only the means are regarded as esthetically relevant. Such theories set up a false dichotomy and claim that a slob portrayed by the technical means of a genius is preferable to a goddess portrayed by the technique of an amateur. I hold that both are esthetically offensive; but while the second is merely esthetic incompetence, the first is an esthetic crime.

There is no dichotomy, no necessary conflict between ends and means. The end does not justify the means--neither in ethics nor in esthetics. And neither do the means justify the end: there is no esthetic justification for the spectacle of Rembrandt’s great artistic skill employed to portray a side of beef. ("The Goal of My Writing," in The Romantic Manifesto, p. 166.)

This pathetic nit-picking about the detailed lineage of one doo-dad versus another by otherwise educated adults from an advanced civilization is the epistemological equivalent of the aesthetic crime described in that last paragraph. It is a subordination of the investigative and integrative powers of the human mind to the arbitrary dictum that we must not change anything in nature, rather than to its proper end: human survival.

It's too bad that people are too busy worrying about "the potential effects of each choice on water pollution, land use, ... biodiversity," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Otherwise, they might have time to notice the ethical lapse they're committing with all this feel-good busywork, as well as its consequences:

The only way to leave no "footprint" would be to die--a conclusion that is not lost on many green ideologues. Consider the premise of the nonfiction bestseller titled The World Without Us, which fantasizes about how the earth would "recover" if all humanity suddenly became extinct. Or consider the chilling, anti-human conclusion of an op-ed discussing cloth versus disposable diapers: "From the earth’s point of view, it’s not all that important which kind of diapers you use. The important decision was having the baby." [minor edits]

Tomorrow, I won't be thinking about my "footprint." I'll celebrate my life and the reasoning mind that makes that life possible. And how does that happy result of natural evolution, the human mind, make my life possible? By making me able to exploit the earth, as Craig Biddle explains:

Exploiting the Earth--using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes--is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials--such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms--and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly "noble" savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others. [minor edits]

In their outlandish attempts to catalog every minutia about every item they consider purchasing, the greens may feel like they are keeping the big picture in mind, but they are wrong, because their whole altruistic, self-sacrificial premise is wrong.

But they're too busy examining every tree with a magnifying glass to see that forest.

-- CAV

Read more...

A Precautionary Disaster?

$200 million per day: That's a conservative estimate of what just the airlines are losing from closure of European air space due to the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Note that this does not include other consequent losses to businesses that depend on an uninterrupted flow of passenger traffic or reliable shipping, problems for individuals stranded in airports, or any cascading effects that will result from those losses.

Are the government bureaucrats in charge of closing European airspace justified when they cite the dangers that flying through clouds of volcanic debris pose to jet engines? Or are they just repackaging the fallacy of the broken window as they wreak unnecessary havoc on the lives of millions of people worldwide?

Calling volcanic ash "the new swine flu panic," Simon Jenkins of The Guardian notes that, "[e]ven an airline company, with everything to lose, is not allowed to assess its own risk," and Frank Furedi of Spiked relays the following information:

Many individuals associated with the air-travel industry are perturbed by what they perceive to be a one-dimensional overreaction. Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, secretary-general of the Association of European Airlines, observed that "verification flights undertaken by several of our airlines have revealed no irregularities at all". He believes that "this confirms our requirement that other options should be deployed to determine genuine risk". Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association, describes the ban as a "European embarrassment" and a "European mess". [bold added, other minor edits]

Furedi's larger point is especially compelling:

[A]s a sociologist interested in the process of decision-making, it is evident to me that the reluctance to lift the ban on air traffic in Europe is motivated by worst-case thinking rather than rigorous risk assessment. Risk assessment is based on an attempt to calculate the probability of different outcomes. Worst-case thinking – these days known as "precautionary thinking" -- is based on an act of imagination. It imagines the worst-case scenario and then takes action on that basis. In the case of the Icelandic volcano, fears that particles in the ash cloud could cause aeroplane engines to shut down automatically mutated into a conclusion that this would happen. So it seems to me to be the fantasy of the worst-case scenario rather than risk assessment that underpins the current official ban on air traffic. [bold added, other minor edits]

Might these man-made effects of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption be a sort of Mini-Me of global warming hysteria?

If indeed test flights have shown negligible risk of flying after this eruption, it would seem that the precautionary principle, that bastard spawn of government control of the economy and Pascal's Wager in scientific drag, is wreaking major havoc on the world's economy. Sez Jenkins:

Many more will die on roads and elsewhere because of the anarchy the air controllers have unleashed on Europe, but that is not their business. They don't care.

Given the life-sustaining necessity of production and trade, this is at once unnecessary hyperbole and a gross understatement of the damage. Millions of lives are in fact being harmed by this barring-by-government-fiat of individuals from evaluating risks for themselves and then deciding whether to board -- or fly -- airplanes. Even if the body count is zero after this fiasco ends, it has cost millions of people irreplaceable fractions of their lives in the forms of time and money.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Via Matt Drudge: "Air ban led by flawed computer models":

The computer models that guided decisions to impose a no-fly zone across most of Europe in recent days are based on incomplete science and limited data, according to European officials. As a result, they may have over-stated the risks to the public, needlessly grounding flights and damaging businesses.

...

[E]arly results of the 40-odd test flights conducted over the weekend by European airlines, such as KLM and Air France, suggested that the risk was less than the computer models had indicated.

...

"If you take the situation across the Atlantic, there the advice would probably be: don't fly over the volcano. Otherwise, it is up to you to take the precautions necessary," ...

Read the whole thing.

Read more...

Quick Roundup 524

Tell your friends!

This weekend, I finally got around to making life easier for people who want to use social media to share posts from this blog. Each post now includes a single "share" button that works with many (if not most) commonly-used bookmarking and social media sites. Holding your cursor over the button (or the word, "share") will bring up a list of options.

Tyranny of the Mean

Stella Zawistowski takes note of yet another way ObamaCare will harm those who need more medical care than average:

[T]he health care "reform" bill is capping the annual limit of money that can be put into a tax-free health-care flexible spending account at $2,500, starting in 2013. Proponents of the limit argue that the average amount put into such accounts is much less than that -- only $1,400 (of course, I'm sure people would put more money in if it could be rolled over from year to year and thus used to insure against serious, unforeseen events). So who are we really hurting by imposing it?

The people who need "access" to more medical care than average and want to spare their personal finances, that's who.

Asked. Answered.

A multiculturalist reporter gets her head politely handed back to her on a platter after asking a dishonest question that any American should find offensive.

Clinton's Ideological Altruism

Bill Clinton's recent remarks purporting a connection between the tea parties and "violence" (the latter term also being a dishonest, but ubiquitous leftist fallacy) are notable for whom they hold responsible for domestic terrorism:

He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.

"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said.

So if you make an argument against the government claiming ownership over your own body, no matter how good (or true) it might be, and some kook uses it as an excuse to commit a crime or an act of terrorism, you are responsible.

In addition to this line of reasoning being a trial balloon for censorship, it is also a distraction from the fact that our government has just passed a law injurious to freedom (which is vital to our survival) and which, by rationing medical care, poses a real threat to our lives.

It's not an obscenity!

It's a type of beer brewed in a town in Austria. And, yes, I'll keep an eye out for it.

Thanks for the recommendation and the laugh, Craig!

-- CAV

Read more...

Budget Cuts

Via HBL, I have learned about a headline that made my day: "Strapped City Cuts and Cuts and Cuts." (A subscription is required to view the full article. More details about the city's financial situation can be found here.) This was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, and it is encouraging news for anyone who advocates a return of government to its proper scope.

Like many American cities, this one [Colorado Springs --ed] is strapped for cash. Tax collections here have fallen so far that the city has turned off one-third of its 24,512 street lights.

But unlike many cities, this one is full of people who are eager for more government cutbacks.

The town council has been bombarded with emails telling it to close community centers. Letters to the local newspaper call for shrinking the police department and putting the city-owned utility up for sale. A commission is studying whether to sell the municipal hospital. ...

It's nice to see that there are at least some areas with the political will to reduce the size of the government.

Although I have not seen the whole article, I will note that other excerpts I have seen indicate that many of the residents there generally favor small government as opposed to proper government. (Many see paving streets as a proper function of the government, for example.) Nevertheless, it's encouraging to be able to say, "It can happen here," and be talking about turning the tide against government expansion for a change, rather than alluding to the Sinclair Lewis novel about dictatorship coming to America.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 523

Ron Paul and the Meaning of a Vote

I have made known here several times my dissatisfaction with the self-described "pork-buster," who "focuses on petty theft and turns a blind eye to grand larceny."

While it is laudable to oppose the corruption inherent in our mixed economy, it is a waste of time -- an even more valuable resource than money -- to flail about that way without fighting for the fully free economy that would make such a problem (and much worse) disappear.

But when I see someone fighting, albeit poorly, against corruption, I can still see that such a person's heart is in the right place. This is not the case with Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), whose claim that he never votes for earmarks isn't quite the whole story (HT: Dismuke), according to a post at Red State:

Ron Paul is believed to be a "fiscal conservative" and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

This he does by sponsoring or co-sponsoring the earmarks in appropriations bills that he then votes against.

In considering this revelation, the following question occurred to me as I tried to figure out the ramifications: "Well, what could an advocate of capitalism do in office, in today's context of a mixed economy?" The fact remains that massive government distortion of the economy makes it almost impossible for certain things to be done without government money.

The answer would be similar, I think, to that given by Ayn Rand to a student wondering about the propriety of accepting government aid to attend school:

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others -- the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.

In that vein, I would have no trouble with a lawmaker occasionally sponsoring an earmark were doing so basically made necessary by existing government distortions of the economy, or, conceivably even voting for an appropriations bill (were it for a legitimate purpose, like the military, or perhaps if at least it did not expand illegitimate government activity). Said lawmaker would have to make it clear, though, why he acted as he did. Indeed, voting for such bills would be unavoidable in the course of transitioning from a mixed economy to a free one. To the extent that existing government controls make government aid the only way to accomplish certain otherwise legitimate activities, voting for a reasonable amount of money to perform them does not necessarily constitute sanction of the welfare state.

It is this last thing that Paul gets wrong when, upon the question coming up, he implicitly equates casting a vote with moral sanction. (How many Objectivists who voted for Barack Obama actually support his policies?) Paul thus regularly misses opportunities to speak up against statism. He also fails to open the much-needed debate about how to transition from a mixed economy to capitalism, and comes off as a hypocrite to boot.

The cause of individual rights deserves much better than this.

If you're an Objectivist and want to save money at the barber, ...

... read how hair-pullingly close this scientific editorial gets to Ayn Rand's identification of how emotions are affected by philosophical premises.

Any remaining tufts can will practically take care of themselves once you realize that author Paul Bloom equates altruism, a type of morality, with morality in general.

And Speaking of Objectivists,...

... this week's Objectivist Roundup is scheduled to be hosted at Sacred Ego. Last week's edition was at Titanic Deck Chairs.

The Anti-Federalist Papers

An old post by Doug Reich on these historical documents came to my attention yesterday when he raised a particularly interesting issue in the comments.

Two Worthy Causes

Shea Levy raises two good points as he tries to help a fellow blogger.

Through her tweets at @foodphilosophy, her blog posts at Food Philosophy, her work with the Culinary Media Network, and her efforts to make Sex On a Plate revolutionize the way we experience food, Jennifer is an inspiration and an amazing example of a woman who loves life on a visceral, emotional, and intellectual level and who works to make life even better. Unfortunately, her apartment was broken into recently and, among other things, her laptop was stolen. If ever there was a person who deserved assistance in facing a crisis that occurred through no fault of her own, it's Jenn. Whether you want to consider it a payment for her past work or an investment to allow her to continue producing amazing things, please consider donating to the fund I've set up to help her replace her laptop. The donation is through Paypal, and you can get to the donation page by clicking this link, clicking the button below, or clicking the button on the sidebar.

I am not yet familiar with Food Philosophy, but it came to my attention recently as a link I intended to explore from the sidebar of One Reality. From what I can see there so far, the post at Cogito is just as much a recommendation to embark on a culinary adventure as it is to help Jennifer Iannolo.

Why Grow a Playoff Deployment Beard?

This amusing Q&A editorial on why one should grow a playoff beard brings back memories from my days as a clean-shaven youth in the submarine force:

In general, chicks don’t like beards.

I used to think that, too. Then you meet a couple who like them. Those chicks like flannel shirts, work boots, beards, and men. Not clean, freshly-pressed window dressings with fashion sense. These women like men. Burly, manly men. I'm not going to guarantee that a beard will transform you, but it will certainly help you fake it. Eastwood and Bronson had heavy stubble all the time. And how can we forget the beard sporting, ass-kicking Mr. Chuck Norris? G.I. Joe? Sean Friggin’ Connery? Yea, chicks have never thrown themselves their way.

I first grew a beard when on a North Atlantic deployment as part of the customary beard-growing contest that submariners do when gone for weeks at a time. Side growth was pathetic, so I ditched the full beard for a goatee like the one I illegally sport in Boston today. We took pictures for posterity, shaved 'em off at the end, and that was that.

Or so I thought.

Years later, during grad school, I had classmates over and that picture surfaced. We all got a good laugh, but a female classmate who was a good friend (and eventually introduced me to Mrs. Van Horn) told me I really ought to consider growing it back.

I did, and now Mrs. Van Horn won't let me shave it off -- not that I'd want to, anyway.

-- CAV

Read more...

Giving up in Oklahoma

Lawmakers who oppose the policies of Barack Obama have added their voices to a small chorus of voices on the right that have been confessing ideological impotence lately:

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Not so long ago, Governor Rick Perry of Texas made noise about seceding from the union, and other, lower-ranking members of the executive branch of the government have displayed a similar ignorance for the role of debate in representative government, not to mention a disregard for the importance of the rule of law.

Aside from the fact that this latest idea is blatantly impractical, we are far, far from the point where it would be appropriate to raise the issue of armed insurrection at all, as I mentioned in a previous post when I contrasted the "oath takers" to the tea partiers (or at least the rank and file as far as my impression has been).

At least the tea partiers understand that America remains free enough that moral and political debate can preserve the freedom we have left and bring the government back around to its proper purpose of protecting individual rights. Many of them are wrong about particulars, but they at least appreciate the proper approach to political change in a nation founded on the principle -- apparently forgotten by the "oath-keepers" -- of consent of the governed, and in a nation of laws, and not men. The tea partiers offer their views for the consideration of others, and, from what I have heard, many are actively seeking the intellectual ammunition they need to better understand what went wrong with America and what they need to know to appeal to the best within their countrymen before the next election.

I will add, however, that the news story about this proposal for a state militia to oppose federal mandates claims that it has support from "[t]ea party movement leaders." If this is true, and these leaders represent a significant trend within that movement, this is very bad news.

-- CAV

Read more...

"Marketing" vs. Reality

A news story about Greg Ackelrod, an events promoter who very nearly got hired as a player by a major professional football club got me thinking about con men this morning...

Every time I hear about some particularly clever crime, my next thought is always something like, "If he'd only put half this much imagination into actual work, he'd have found real, lasting success and avoided trouble completely." The movie, Catch Me if You Can, based on the life of Frank Abagnale, Jr., perfectly illustrates what I mean, but success did not come to young Mr. Abagnale until he'd been caught and made to pay the price for what he did. Why?

In part, it's because Abagnale had to learn the hard way that his own interests were best served by trading with others, versus fooling them long enough to steal from them. (And then, incidentally, hoping others he wanted to trade with later didn't know whom they were dealing with.) Among the many different ways a con man stacks the deck against himself, the problems his way of obtaining what he needs to survive pose in dealing with others are legion. These are easy enough to see, even for many altruists, and stem from the very nature of lying as a war on reality and the fact that doing so makes one dependent on the stupidity of others. The entire universe is quite a formidable adversary, especially when the supply of stupidity dries up at some inopportune time.

But that's not all. The analysis of most altruists would begin and end with the above paragraph, but a morality of egoism makes it easier to see just how badly the con man swindles himself. The above is bad enough, but what does a con man have to do to his own mind to become really effective at tricking other people?

He has to attempt to integrate his efforts every day around the man-made rather than the metaphysical. That is, his primary concern isn't, "How do I solve some real problem," but "How do I fool 'em this time?" This expedient attitude is an enemy of conceptual thought, long-range planning, and a mind-frame consonant with the trader principle, by which civilized men deal with one another. Other people have different weaknesses. Even if one con works, people catch on. There is no way to build a long-term relationship with anyone who has been fooled (or knows you've fooled someone else) nor is there a constructive end around which one integrates his thinking or skills. Imagine the kind of work someone like this will turn in were you to plop him down in a normal job and a problem crops up that requires concentration and teamwork. The con man thus cripples his own mind. Furthermore, since emotions are automatized reactions to deeply integrated value-judgments, the damage occurs both conceptually and psychologically.

Catch Me if You Can dramatized the psychological damage con men do to themselves quite well. Abagnale starts his work catching criminals like himself under very close supervison, and he is strongly tempted to return to the world he knew when the opportunity to do so presents itself. Psychologically, Frank Abagnale still craves the thrill of tricking people again as against such values as satisfaction with a job well done and friendship.

So what about Greg Ackelrod? He thinks his stunt will prove his value as a marketer. "In terms of marketing, I am someone very, very valuable." Sure. If only playing it loose with facts were any way to build a loyal customer base... Any potential employer who doesn't inspect this guy with a fine-toothed comb before taking him on is playing a stunt of his own.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 522

Which of these things does not belong?

Death, taxes, inflation, or robbery?

The introductory paragraph to Brian Phillips's series on financing the government of a free society helps us find the answer.

Death and taxes, we are often told, are two inevitable facts of life. However, a crucial distinction exists between the two--death is a metaphysical fact, while taxes are a man-made fact. As such, death is in fact inevitable, but taxes are not. The metaphysical is absolute and immutable; the man-made is subject to the choices and actions of man.

His next paragraph provides further help for those who might imagine taxes to be an unavoidable necessity for men to live in society, and Ayn Rand offers the following assist for anyone needing help on the metaphysical status of inflation:

Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending. No private embezzlers or bank robbers in history have ever plundered people's savings on a scale comparable to the plunder perpetrated by the fiscal policies of statist governments. ("Who Will Protect Us from Our Protectors?", The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1962, p. 18.)

As a kid during the Carter presidency, I recall the hardships caused by inflation and even remember hearing news reporters babbling about it being a "symptom" of the "economy over-heating."

Remember all this when you read the following piece.

It [sic] part to help the economy get cranking again. Inflation provides an incentive for people to spend cash rather than saving it, because if they save it, the cash will lose value rapidly.

Inflation also helps solve another problem, though--our debt problem. The more inflation we have, the less our dollars will be worth. Because our debts are based on a specific number of dollars and not a specific value, the less our dollars are worth, the easier it will be for us to pay off our debts.

If you're unemployed or underemployed due to the state-caused recession, the last thing you need to hear is that the state is working overtime to give you an "incentive" to spend more money than you planned.

When the Bush-Obama inflation eventually hits stride, anyone who knows better should be ready to make the case that it never had to happen, and that we are all being robbed.

(And anyone who might want to make the above point through the written word would do well to read Paul Hsieh's "Tips for Getting Published" over at NoodleFood.)

And then, there's the whole matter of the word "incentive," which I have noticed being used before as a means of blurring the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made, as well as that between central planning and capitalism. Real incentives don't come from the point of a gun, but only from the facts of reality.

Fear Takes the Wheel

In light of the above, Peter Schiff has a few words regarding stock rallies over the past few years.

[I]f higher U.S. stock prices really did result from an improving U.S. economy, the dollar would be rising in tandem with stocks. However, every time stock prices rise the dollar falls. The best explanation for this dichotomy is that it is inflation not growth that drives both stocks and the dollar. So rising stock prices do not really indicate a bull market in stocks, but a bear market in the dollar. Those who cannot differentiate between the two will continue to misread the market and the economy.

I suspect that the confusion of such rallies with economic recovery causes many people to worry less about the economy, removing public pressure to reduce government intervention, which is exactly the opposite of what we need.

See also "US Household Net Worth," over at Priced in Gold.

ObamaCare vs. New Medical Technology

Paul Hsieh does it again. The below sums up how a new tax that is part of the plan will treat the company that gave us automatic external defibrillators:

[T]he ObamaCare tax would impose an additional $7.5 million annual burden on Zoll, nearly eliminating their annual profit of $9.5 million.

Read the whole thing, and then mosey on over to Fire the 219. (HT: We Stand FIRM).

More than just an Al Franken Character!

Some time in the recent past, I was pleasantly surprised to learn -- apparently, as many others have been -- that Saturday Night Live's Jack Handey is, in fact, a real person. His web site includes free code that will permit you to scroll this week's Deep Thoughts on your own site.

-- CAV

Read more...

Enjoyment Friday

(The "Three Good Things" Edition)

Due to a minor emergency, I've had scant time to piece any two consecutive thoughts together this morning and am now in something of a rush as well. So, in the spirit of greeting the weekend by focusing on the positive, I'll borrow a page from Martin Seligman's book and list three good things from the past day.

1. My Cold -- It may seem counterintuitive to include illness on such a list, but hear me out. I went all winter wondering when I was going to catch cold, what with every other subway commute resembling a tour of a tuberculosis ward. Nothing. Even with me being around many more people than in the past, I fell into my usual pattern of staying well until warmer weather arrived (and I'd forgotten all about colds) and then -- bam! -- getting sick. The odd severe cold like this one really makes me appreciate my usual good health, particularly as I notice my renewed vigor during my recovery. I was laid out for most of Monday and lethargic until late yesterday. I have a mild headache now, but I can breathe again and it feels great. I can't wait for the almost delirious feeling of energy I always get after sleeping off the last of a cold.

2. The Football Wizardry of Lionel Messi -- Again, counterintuitive. But as I watched highlights of this guy single-handedly dismantling my favorite club team, I was in awe of his skill. Among his four goals were a hat trick during a 22-minute span.

3. This Quote (via this morning's HBL) from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:

It is your mind that they want you to surrender--all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others"-- end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others."

Respect for the minds of her audience is probably the single thing that impressed me the most about Ayn Rand as an intellectual when I first encountered her, and is still one of the things I value the most about her to this day.

Far too many intellectuals, whose altruism is not necessarily obvious, would have you surrender your own judgment to their say-so. Ayn Rand never has done this, and would rather you reject her philosophy because you don't see it, rather than pay ignorant or second-handed lip-service to it.

As always, thank you, Ayn Rand!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Three clarifications and several minor edits.

Read more...

Quick Roundup 521

Follow me on Twitter

I keep hearing that lots of people get their news and blog feeds from Twitter, so I've finally opened an account. At least for now, I plan to use it almost entirely to announce publication of new posts via Twitterfeed, which will look for updates hourly. Those who want the tweets can get them here.

Yes. That's a raven. Why? Because it's my favorite non-mythological bird.

More Blog Maintenance

I slipped in a handful more of new blogs to the sidebar. Better yet, I now have what had been a tedious task reduced to what will become a script and a few text file edits on the next iteration. The additions from last time are still marked "new" to give my readers a chance to visit them as well as the other new additions.

As usual, if you were linked before and write regularly, make sure you're still here. A few blogs have changed names or addresses, too. (e.g., Doc MacDonald is now listed as Let's Get Political..., and the link for the Objectivism Metablog should work now.)

Also, the list of favorite posts has been updated, and it will be far easier for me to keep it current in the future, too.

Coming soon in the hopper will be updating the FAQ, so if you've ever wanted to ask a question about me or my blog, fire away.

Schiff-Greenspan Cage Match

Peter Schiff blames Alan Greenspan for the housing bubble in no uncertain terms and officially challenges the former central planner to a debate in a video that I unfortunately cannot embed. (HT: HBL)

Watch and enjoy. I am ambivalent about Schiff's senatorial campaign. On the one hand, I'd love to rid the Senate of Chris Dodd. On the other, his recent support of Ron Paul makes me dubious about his non-economic opinions, not to mention the fact that Schiff could do far more good as an in-line activist in the field of finance. (This last is not to imply that I consider Schiff an Objectivist.)

Government Financing in a Free Society

Regarding a recent post in which I brought up the idea of abolishing taxation altogether, a commenter asked about more concrete guidance. In answering him, I forgot to mention an entire series of posts on the subject by Brian Phillips at Live Oaks. I listed them once here before, but it seems worthwhile to do so again:

• Introduction
• The Size of Government
• The Police And Military
• The Courts
• Other Revenue Sources
• Final Thoughts

Also, while this is not exactly the same subject (and I haven't read the full article yet), Glenn Reynolds points to a story about how Ireland turned government workers "into a lobby for responsible spending" as a means of lowering their pay. Of course, doing this risks granting moral sanction to the government performing tasks that are outside its proper scope, so such a tactic should be used with caution, if at all.

Fashion Faux Pas

This blog post on hanger loops reminds me of an opera date with Mrs. Van Horn ages ago.

I don't know what it was, but early on, I noticed that her dress had some odd (but still pretty), tassel-like thing hanging out just above its zipper, below her neckline, in the back. When we got home, she discovered this and asked why I didn't say anything to her about it. "I thought it was a decoration," I said lamely.

Needless to say, I never assume anything out of the ordinary on a dress is necessarily decorative any more!

-- CAV

Read more...

Racism Makes a Comeback

Although I am not a conservative, I must express my complete disgust at the left's inexcusable persecution (HT: Jim May) of black conservatives who have chosen to take an active role in opposing Barack Obama's collectivist political agenda.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

...

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) [sic] role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

...

Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think--something that offensive--you would think someone got video of it," [Clifton] Bazar, the conservative blogger, said. [links edited]

"How can you not support the brother?" What the hell is this supposed to mean? That David Webb, as a black man, is not allowed (or not really able?) to form his own opinion about what another black man says? That whatever Barack Obama happens to want, regardless of its actual merits, gets carte blanche because he is black? If so, does this go for everyone, or just blacks? What if, perish the thought, someone thinks Barack Obama is wrong about something? Could being a yes-man really constitute support, anyway?

The questions above are rhetorical in most cases because the charges being leveled have nothing to do with an evaluation of what is being said or why, and everything to do with enforcing a view of man as a member of a collective rather than as what he actually is -- an individual.

To see this more clearly, one need only consider what would be going on in the media were the respective positions of David Webb and Barack Obama reversed. The press would give Webb the same treatment it routinely gives Clarence Thomas and Obama would be a rising media star at the national level. Why? Because as imperfectly as Thomas advocates individualism, such advocacy is what makes him "the wrong Negro," as Thurgood Marshall once put it. Or, as Ayn Rand once put it so well, albeit in more general terms, "Racism ... is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage..."

Ayn Rand, who so thoroughly condemned racism as collectivism, allows us to better understand by doing so what Martin Niemoeller so famously also warned us about: That racism, as collectivism, endangers us all and is, ironically, not even really about race, but about extirpating the individual, whatever his appearance. This is why, today, an individualist is considered by the left as "the wrong Negro" if he's black and as good as a Klansman if he's white. This is also why, in the past, when whites were of a nominally higher social position, speaking up for racial equality carried with it the real possibility of physical harm even for them. In each case, a species of collectivism informed the opinions of the name-callers and the thugs.

This news is both extremely disappointing and quite disturbing, to say the least. But do not be lulled into complacency if your skin color or ideological persuasion doesn't happen to match that of Timothy Johnson or any of the other black conservatives featured in the story.

In the sense that the collectivist left wishes to crush all remotely individualist opposition, we are all black conservatives now.

-- CAV

Read more...

A 900-Word Concession

Shortly after hearing about Barack Obama's rambling, 2500-word response (ably analyzed by Doug Reich) to a woman's contention that Americans are "over-taxed" as it is, I was stunned to see a prominent conservative columnist concede Obama's basic premise in an only slightly more economical 900 words and change.

To be fair, Jonah Goldberg makes quite a few pertinent observations about the deleterious effects of increasing taxation, but a principled reader cannot and will not let go of his best:

Imagine for a moment that Tax Freedom Day was Dec. 31. In other words, picture working 365 days a year for the government. Now, the government would "give" you a place to sleep, food to eat and clothes to wear, but all your income would really be Washington's income to allocate as it saw fit. Some romantics might call this sort of arrangement "socialism" or "communism." But another perfectly good word for it is "slavery" or, if you prefer, involuntary servitude.

Indeed. Unfortunately, Goldberg's next sentence is not, "This question ultimately boils down to, 'How much slavery is enough?'" Nor is the remainder of his argument anything resembling such a conclusion. Rather, he immediately concedes to Obama the principle that each man owns his own life:

Now, no one is proposing any such arrangement. But it's an important point conceptually. A 100% tax rate would be tyrannical not just because you have a right to own what you create, but because the government would necessarily decide what you can and can't have. Reasonable people can of course differ about where a tax rate becomes tyrannical, and we're far from that line in historical terms. But any amount of taxation can be unjust if it is being used for bad reasons, is applied discriminatorily or if it's taken without representation. (That's how the American Revolution started, after all.)

I cannot disagree more with the idea that reasonable people -- if such people value freedom anyway -- can seriously entertain the question about how much slavery is tyrannical. Any slavery at all is tyrannical, and once any amount is accepted as "reasonable," the fact is that slavery has been accepted as reasonable. To draw a historical parallel of my own, that's what Abraham Lincoln meant leading up to the Civil War when he said:

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

The fact that slavery was much closer to a binary condition for each individual then as opposed to a question of degree for everyone now is inconsequential, as the economic maxim, "Controls breed controls," demonstrates.

Goldberg is right that slavery is impractical, but wrong to think that this is only true when an individual is a slave more than about a third of the time. In fact, he is wrong to permit himself to accept as legitimate the notion that any of us should be slaves even one-thousandth of the time. All slavery is wrong, and no government based on slavery is truly legitimate.

We might perhaps forgive Goldberg or others horrified by the recent growth of the government for not being able to imagine how the legitimate functions of the government might be carried out without taxation. Nevertheless, that is something we need to start imagining, because we will never get off the slippery slope we are on until we start making an uncompromising moral case against slavery.

Fortunately, Ayn Rand, who alone has made a comprehensive moral defense of capitalism not only showed that a government limited to its proper scope would be far less expensive, she threw out a few ideas of her own in an essay about government financing in a free society. She also made it clear that such a change, while a distant goal in the fight against tyranny, is a goal nonetheless.

In a fully free society, taxation--or, to be exact, payment for governmental services--would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government--the police, the armed forces, the law courts--are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing--how to determine the best means of applying it in practice--is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today--since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions. ("Government Financing in a Free Society," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 116.)

I refuse to quibble with anyone over whether I should be a slave for one minute or my entire life, or for any amount in between. I will settle for nothing less than an end to the practice of slavery, and that includes whitewashing it as "taxation" when the agency that should be protecting me from slavery is in fact guilty of the very crime.

-- CAV

Read more...

Quick Roundup 520

Blogroll Updates

It has been eons since the last time I updated the blogroll, but I finally started that over the weekend. I have gotten the process as close to automated as it can get, but I still have a bug to track down and squash. In any event, the immediate goal, after the bug fix, will be to go through a large backlog of new blogs a few at a time until I have more or less caught up and can make the process more manageable in size and regularly-occurring. (Each depends on and will enable the other.) This round's new additions number six and are marked, "new."

If you post regularly, were here before, and find yourself missing, drop me a line. Similarly, if your blog is on the inactive list, but you've started writing again, let me know.

Racism in "Polite" Society

A joke relayed in a comment in a very interesting thread over at New Clarion struck me instantly as racist in more ways than one:

Regarding the Tea-Parties-as-Racist meme, it is so pervasive, Letterman, during his monologue, made a joke -- something to the effect "its got as much black in it as a Tea Party rally; i.e. none." The audience gave a big laugh.Yes.

This is not just anti-white bigotry and a smear against advocates of limited government. It is also implicitly an example of a very common slam against blacks and the virtue of independence, as if no black man in his right mind would oppose Obama's ideal of a Leviathan state.

This is all on top of the fact that the whole punchline is also patently untrue: Individuals of every hue have attended Tea Party events out of concern about statism.

Our Declining Net Worth

Priced in Gold offers the folllowing translation of a recent "news" story titled, "Americans' net worth rises for third straight quarter":

Americans saw their wealth shrink again last quarter, mainly because of losses in the value of the dollar. The Federal Reserve reported Thursday that household net worth fell 8.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, to 1,526 tonnes of gold. Net worth had risen 2.5 percent in the second quarter and fallen 1 percent in the third. Aside from the second quarter's uptick, net worth has been falling every period since the third quarter of 2007. Falling home prices caused a major hit: Real estate holdings dropped 9.6 percent to 467 tonnes. The value of stocks fell 6.3 percent in the period, to 217 tonnes of gold. Underlying all of these drops is the continuing debasement of the US Dollar, as bogus "bailouts", "stimulus plans" and other reckless deficit spending take their toll.

Americans' net worth would have to rise 227 percent to get back to its pre-recession peak of 5,000 tonnes of gold.

Interestingly, Barack Obama sees nothing wrong with this, and so has not made "wealth reform" a top priority. (This is not to say that I would necessarily want his idea of what that would entail, which would be even worse than this.) Incredibly, the opposition party seems completely unaware of the opportunity such an opening could represent or indeed that there even is an opening.

Heh!

From Bubblehead's April Fool's post:

Word on the street today is that President Obama is going to confirm the existence of the secret submarine base under the Nevada desert.

And then he quotes from the Navy's Facebook page:

Today the Navy announced a new and unprecedented partnership with the U.S. Air Force on the next Aircraft Carrier. The next Ford class aircraft carrier will be jointly crewed by both Navy and Air Force personnel becoming the first fully joint warship. In the spirit of this partnership the ship will be named the "James Doolittle" after Lt Col. James Doolittle that famously led a raid on Tokyo in April 1942. In the spirit of environmental efforts in the Navy, the ship will include a new 'Green Flight Deck' designed to Air Force specifications. Naval aviators have never been so excited about an upcoming deployment.

The picture there says it all!

-- CAV

Read more...

FSC

A pleasant surprise for me upon moving to our place in Boston last June was discovering that the Fox Soccer Channel was part of our basic cable lineup. I enjoy catching the occasional game on television enough, for example, that back in my Houston days, I'd happily watch the Mexican league games available on local Spanish-language stations despite the language barrier.

Getting the commentary in English, not to mention seeing English Premier League games again has been really nice. But a game I watched recently, Manchester United at Bayern Munchen, was this American's introduction to UEFA Champion's League action. I had heard of this competition, of course, but never really followed it because I simply don't have the time to plan my life around sporting events or -- as I would have needed in Houston -- the money to watch such things on a pay-per-view basis at a favorite pub.

Boy, was I missing out! I caught most of that match and really enjoyed the high level of competition. FSC also happens to have a well-thought-out companion web site. This is great, because I can now easily track the progress of Arsenal, my favorite club, in the tournament and watch or record its upcoming match. (The Gunners need to win it, away from home, to remain in the tournament, and lots of them are injured.) Of course, there's also the rest of this tournament and the Premier League season.

The backdrop to all this is the decades-old telecommunications revolution that has made massive amounts of information available cheaply to anyone at any time. Watching the premier league was, for me as I grew up, a family Sunday tradition (i.e., Soccer Made in Germany with Toby Charles). The other day, I used a game in the background to make doing taxes semi-bearable. If it's easy to use yesterday's must-see viewing as half-background, it's just as easy to take the innovative technology and the political freedom that make it possible for granted. Back then, just seeing any Premier League game was worth planning a Sunday evening around. Now, I'm talking about picking and choosing what to watch and when.

If you don't like soccer, think of something else you enjoy that technology has improved and made easier for you to get, and remember that the next time someone blathers about how we "need" more economic controls or how "exploited" we are by Big Corporations.

-- CAV

Read more...